Thank Joe and Eliot for the comments and suggestions, I will specify these two points for discussion in my slides.
Thanks, Bo 发件人: Joe Clarke (jclarke) [mailto:jcla...@cisco.com] 发送时间: 2019年7月9日 23:15 收件人: Eliot Lear <l...@cisco.com> 抄送: Wubo (lana) <lana.w...@huawei.com>; Qin Wu <bill...@huawei.com>; Tianran Zhou <zhoutian...@huawei.com>; opsawg@ietf.org; OpsAWG Chairs <opsawg-cha...@ietf.org> 主题: Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02 On Jul 9, 2019, at 05:35, Eliot Lear <l...@cisco.com<mailto:l...@cisco.com>> wrote: On 9 Jul 2019, at 08:59, Wubo (lana) <lana.w...@huawei.com<mailto:lana.w...@huawei.com>> wrote: Thank Eliot for pointing out these questions. I share a similar view with Qin, and I suggest to make the following changes in the next version: 1. draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs will be changed as a normative reference according to RFC3967. Several points: please take into account that RFC 8067 updates RFC 3967. What this means is that you should probably have a brief chat with the chairs and Ignas on this point to see what he wants. It may also be worth a little bit of discussion time. Agreed on your points here. I do think this should be a standards track document, and I think a downref would be acceptable in this case. But this is worth addressing as an issue for your draft in your slot. 2. For the second point, I think your concern may be whether the TACACS + YANG model is flexible enough to accommodate the TACACS advanced features. I think the augmentation is exactly what you want to do for this sort of thing. This was also my thinking. If/when a T+/TLS draft comes out and additional configuration is required, that could be an augmentation or even a bis to this model. From a YANG versioning standpoint, we want models to evolve. Joe
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
